In Theaters, April 24th Only: “Fragments of Truth: Can we trust the Bible?” (by Faithlife Films)

This week, on Tuesday only, there is a one-day showing of a new documentary exploring the trustworthiness of the Bible. The movie is produced by Faithlife Films, and features Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Dan Wallace among others. John Rhys-Davies (known for playing Gimli in The Lord of the Rings) is the narrator (he also narrated a documentary on the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible).

From everything I have heard and seen about the film, this looks like a good one to go see. Here is its description:

Can we trust the Bible?

Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda.

In this new Faithlife original film, Dr. Craig Evans takes this claim head-on, traveling the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating that the case for the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is stronger than ever.

Watch the trailer and click here to purchase tickets at a theater near you. Learn more about the film here.

UPDATE: If you go see the movie, you can get a $20 coupon to be used at Logos.com – details here.

Charles E. Hill on Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism

A common assumption among critics of Christianity is that the New Testament was standardized after a long period of textual flux. Only by the fourth century A.D., it is argued, were the competing texts consolidated into standard recensions that became the Alexandrian text and later the Byzantine text. This two to three hundred year period of textual flux gives skeptics room to assume that along with the text, received doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the role of subsitutionary atonement  were also only lately agreed upon.

While there had been textual evidence that seemed to suggest great textual fluidity in the first two centuries after Christ, the more we study the early NT papyrii (over 60 significant portions of NT manuscripts that date from the apx. A.D. 125 to the 400s) the shorter any period of textual flux becomes. Last year, Dr. Charles E. Hill delivered the Spring academic lecture at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando on the topic of the early development of the New Testament text. And his lecture which is available online, does much to clear up this question (see the lecture description here). In 53 minutes (he begins at the 6 minute mark) he gives an overview of the history of textual criticism and details how the scholastic consensus from textual critics familiar with the evidence has shifted in the last few decades. The takeaway from his lecture is that the New Testament text is much more solid than skeptics would have us believe.

If you are interested in textual debates, the new atheism, or textual criticism, this lecture will be informative. Even for those who may be majority text proponents, the recounting of the current state of textual criticism today will prove instructive. Hill is the John R. Richardson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando, and has graduate degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary California (M.Div.) and the University of Cambridge (Ph.D.). He is the author of several books, and was co-editor and contributor to The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012).

“Interpreting the Pauline Letters: An Exegetical Handbook” by John D. Harvey

Interpreting the Pauline Letters: An Exegetical Handbook by John D. HarveyBook Details:
  • Author: John D. Harvey
  • Category: Biblical Studies
  • Book Publisher: Kregel (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 211
  • ISBN#: 9780825427671
  • List Price: $22.99
  • Rating: Recommended

Review:
The life of a pastor is busy. Hectic may be a better word. And in the 21st Century, the pace of life has quickened for everyone, while the expectations for what a pastor must do have only increased. Fortunately, there are an abundance of books and resources designed to give the pastor or teacher a helping hand. Interpreting the Pauline Letters by John D. Harvey, will prove not only helpful but indispensable in the study of the Pauline Epistles.

The book is an exegetical handbook designed to prepare the pastor, teacher or student for an intensive study through Paul’s letters. But it doesn’t stop there. Harvey’s intent is not merely to educate about the historical background of these treasured NT epistles. He aims to facilitate a pastoral application of the Word for today’s hearers. To that end, the book includes a section on how to craft an expositional sermon as well as two examples where Harvey walks through all the steps in preparing a sermon on a text from one of Paul’s letters.

The book begins with a study of the genre of Paul’s letters, comparing Paul’s writing with formal and informal letter styles from the ancient world. Harvey draws careful, balanced conclusions from a comparison of the structure of all of Paul’s letters and explains the function of various sub-units of Paul’s letters. In this chapter, I was introduced to the terms “apostolic parousia” and “apostolic apologia” which play an important role in Paul’s letters and have commonalities with other ancient letters. He also looks at the role rhetoric plays in Paul’s letters. I found his thoughts on the genre to be instructive and not overblown: a helpful survey to keep in mind as one approaches Paul’s letters.

Next Harvey surveys the historical background of Paul’s writings. This section was perhaps the most fascinating. The conservative pastor will be appreciative that the arguments for and against Paul’s authorship of all the traditional Pauline epistles are briefly surveyed and a defense of Pauline authorship – even of the pastoral epistles, is presented. He defends Pauline authorship well but in a cursory manner. He then argues for the integrity of the epistles as we find them in Scripture – 2 Corinthians and Philippians in particular are discussed. He then attempts to build a chronology of the historical background for Paul’s letters from a study of just the letters themselves. He compares this with what we find in Acts and finds complementarity not disharmony. He presents an interesting argument for Philippians being the last of Paul’s letters, but presents the traditional view as well. He is careful not to base too much on historical reconstructions where the evidence is slim. Harvey shines in this section as he navigates the reader through the ins and outs of Pauline scholarship.

The handbook continues with a section on Paul’s theology, which emphasizes “the great transfer” from darkness to light, from being in the world to being in Christ, from Satan’s dominion to the power of God. He traces a theology of each of the letters as well. He only briefly discusses “covenantal nomism” and the New Pauline Perspective, arguing for a traditional view. This in my view is the book’s biggest weakness. By only briefly surveying that issue, and by brief I mean about a half page, the handbook is perhaps more acceptable by a wider audience, but it is less helpful for the busy pastor who wants to know more about this important Pauline question.

The book then moves away from a laser focus on Paul’s epistles to a more generic approach to studying Scripture. Textual criticism and translation are discussed, with several approaches for busy teachers – from comparing translations to doing you own translation from the Greek text (advocated as the best approach). In this section I was pleased to see the Majority Text view of Byzantine priority given equal treatment with the prevailing preference for Alexandrian manuscripts. Most works of this scholarly nature hardly give the Byzantine perspective any mention at all. It is almost a certainty that for conservative pastors, the question of Byzantine priority will come up. Harvey attempts to be even-handed even while ultimately siding with the majority scholarly opinion. After focusing on translation and defining the text to be studied, he gives a general study of how to interpret passages synthetically. He focuses on historical, lexical/linguistic, and theological analyses in a brief but helpful way. The historical analyses were redundant for this book and a bit distracting in my perspective, but everything else was quite useful.

In the next section, Harvey focused on homiletics and how to build a sermon using deductive or inductive patterns. Like the previous sections on translation and interpretation, the examples were from Paul’s epistles but the content was broad and applicable to all of the New Testament. It is here that he also focuses on applying the text to the 21st Century.

In the final section he provides two case-studies applying all the tools, starting with textual criticism and translation of the text, to historical study, literary/linguistic analysis, syntactical study, theological analysis, appropriation, and homiletical packaging. Walking the reader through his method helps bring the whole book together.

I was impressed with how useful and accessible this handbook was for the average reader. It will benefit lay teachers and pastors alike. While it doesn’t cover everything I would like, it is a fine resource which stays faithful to a conservative approach to Scripture. This book is one of a series produced by Kregel Publications: the “Handbooks for New Testament Exegesis.” There is also an OT set of handbooks as well. I’ll be wanting to collect the entire set after my time spent reading through this example. I encourage you to check out this helpful series as well.

Author Info:
John D. Harvey is Professor of New Testament and Dean of the Seminary and School of Ministry at Columbia International University in Columbia, SC. He earned his Doctor of Theology degree from Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto. His previous books include Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters, Greek is Good Grief: Laying the Foundation for Exegesis and Exposition, and Anointed with the Spirit and Power: A Biblical Theology of Holy Spirit Empowerment. He is an ordained teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is actively involved in pulpit supply. He has served cross-culturally in Europe and Africa.

Where to Buy:
  • Amazon.com
  • Christianbook.com
  • Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publishers. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Mining the Archives: The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published March 17, 2006.

This post is long but covers this issue well. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post and shortening it here for the re-post.


The main point of  the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be summarized as follows.

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to  have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.

“NIV Greek and English New Testament” edited by John R. Kohlenberger III

NIV Greek and English New Testament edited by John R. Kohlenberger IIIBook Details:
  • Editor: John R. Kohlenberger III
  • Category: Bibles
  • Publisher: Zondervan (2012)
  • Format: hardcover
  • Page Count: 976
  • ISBN#: 9780310495901
  • List Price: $52.99
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
The NIV Greek and English New Testament is a Greek student’s dream. In one volume both the Greek and English New Testaments are beautifully presented for devotional reading. The 2012 edition, contains the text of the newly updated New International Version (NIV) on one side, and its underlying Greek testament on the other. An introduction to the NIV Greek and English New Testament is included along with the preface to the 2011 NIV. To make the volume complete, at the back is a condensed Greek-English dictionary, edited by William D. Mounce.

The text of this volume is clear and readable, and the margin is nice and wide at 1 inch. It uses a single column format and includes some footnotes, although nothing compared to what one would find in a study Bible or a Greek NT apparatus. The Greek footnotes primarily document differences between the NA27/UBS4 Greek text and the text given which underlies the NIV (600+ differences). They also provide the underlying Greek text for some of the additional variant readings the NIV text footnotes, often involving differences from the text of the King James Bible. The complete English text footnotes are included on the right side of the leaf, where the English text is found. This book is available in imitation leather bound, but works nicely in hardback, as I have it. The pages are thin and lay smooth, yet are of a slightly heavier weight than those found in a typical New Testament. This makes them suitable for the wear and tear of a highlighter and pen, yet still light enough to turn easily for devotional reading.

The presentation of the book is first-rate, but it is not meant to supplant the place of a standard United Bible Societies (UBS) or Nestle-Aland (NA) Greek New Testament. This book came out just as the NA28 hit the presses. But with so few changes in the NA28 from the NA27, this should not harm the value of this study tool. Of course, it would not have provided the NA28 text since the NIV 2011 was not based on it – but it could have included footnotes to the differences between its text and that of the NA28. I am confident that future editions of this resource will do so, provided the NA28 meets the widespread acclaim that its predecessor has.

Another drawback to this work is that it does not footnote all significant differences. Sometimes a significant variant between the KJV and the NIV receives no comment in the English or the Greek footnotes, as in the case of 1 Tim. 3:16 (ος “he who” vs. θεος “God”). In other places, the NIV footnote points out a difference, but the Greek footnotes do not provide the underlying KJV Greek text, as in Jn. 1:18 (μονογενης υιος “only Son” vs. μονογενης θεος “only God”). Sometimes it is unclear if the NIV is referring to an obscure manuscript reading which is not in a published text or not, and the lack of a Greek note makes this more difficult to determine, as at Rom. 8:11 and 1 Cor. 8:2-3. Equally frustrating to someone turning to this resource for help with the Greek text, are places where the NIV mentions textual differences yet the Greek footnote tells the researcher to look up Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the desired information. This is found at Jude 22-23, where it must be noted that plenty of white space exists for the delineation of a few of the textual variants the English footnote alludes to.

Ultimately, however, it is unfair to complain that this tool is not the be-all, end-all resource for textual criticism. It was not designed to be this, after all. It will not replace your Greek testament’s apparatus, but it will make for an easier trip to class or Sunday service. Instead of bringing along a Greek New Testament and your English version of choice, you can tout your NIV Greek and English New Testament and follow along, making a few trips to the dictionary in the back if you get stuck.

Now, not everyone is going to fall in love with the 2011 NIV. Many of us prefer our ESV, or the 1984 NIV, thank you very much! But this tool will meet the needs of some and may warm others up to the fresh NIV translation. Not many translations today provide their underlying Greek, but the NIV does. And in places where you think the new translation gets it wrong, there is plenty of room for jotting your observation down in the margin. This is a fine volume and a useful resource for anyone who is familiar with NT Greek (or hopes to be). I highly recommend it.

Author Info:
John R. Kohlenberger III (MA, Western Seminary) is the author or coeditor of more than three dozen biblical reference books and study Bibles, including The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, NRSV Concordance Unabridged, Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament, Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament, and the Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Edition. He has taught at Multnomah Bible College and Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon.

Where to Buy:
Hardcover edition
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan
Leather edition
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan

Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.